nwnfandomcom-20200213-history
Talk:Drown
Damage amount The description says you take 90% current hp as damage, does this mean if you're already hurt that the damage would be less? And I was playing once with full hp, then a water elemental used drown and I died on the spot. I thought the spell would only reduce hp to 10%, and so would not be able to kill you. Is my assumption that 10 damage would lower your hp by 10 correct? Crambis 21:22, 23 February 2007 (PST) * The spell does 90% of your current hit points in damage. Water elementals do not cast this spell; they do a drown pulse attack, which is different. (In particular, the pulse attack is save or die.) --The Krit 02:01, 24 February 2007 (PST) Saving throw DC? Is there a set fortitude DC save for this someone could please post? -- 00:48, 24 July 2007 (PST) * Since this is the spell description of Drown, the DC here is based on regular caster spell DC (which is variable per caster, not fixed). If you are looking for the Elemental's version of Drown, perhaps it is listed on that monster description. Bromium 07:05, 24 July 2007 (PDT) Damage type Maybe add a note for say its blud damage? So you can ressist it by the way. ILKAY 15:12, 26 January 2008 Changing descriptions BTW, I thought the style manual advised not to change the text of the Bioware descriptions. Does that not apply to amplifications, such as changing "damage" to "bludgeoning damage"? - MrZork (talk) 01:36, November 20, 2012 (UTC) * I thought I asked about this at some point, but I forget where. Originally we kept descriptions as just "damage" with a link to the damage type, but feedback indicated this was too subtle. So the options were to add a note specifying the damage type or to add a single word to the descriptions. Adding a note works, but it seemed to me to be taking things too far. The point of not modifying the descriptions is so that well-intentioned people don't come by and unfix things by restoring what they read in-game. I just don't see someone deciding to delete the name of the damage type (e.g. "bludgeoning") in an attempt to correct information. So I think a specific exception to the general rule can be made here. (I.e. "Don't change official descriptions, unless adding the name of the damage type.") And having that information right in the description makes it more accessible with less reading. : Like I said, I think I wrote this out before. However, I do not recall any replies, so maybe I just planned to ask it, but forgot. Still, I've changed a few spells like this (I didn't hunt them down; I just sometimes edited them as I noticed them), and there seems to be no problems. Meh, I don't see it being a big deal. If you're just looking for a guideline for future edits, I'd say stick in the name of the damage type (it should already be there in the link). Although I suppose this should have been brought up at NWNWiki talk:Manual of style. I'll put something there now. Just wish I could remember where I brought it up before. --The Krit (talk) 04:18, November 20, 2012 (UTC) "Nonliving" BTW, the wording "For purposes of this spell" in the second note for the 01:24, 2012 November 3‎ edit was deliberate, to deter readers from mistakenly inferring that elementals were generally considered "unliving" in the game. - MrZork (talk) 22:18, November 20, 2012 (UTC) * Good point, assuming this is not the only place where the game uses that term. However, I cannot think of others off the top of my head, and searching the wiki for "nonliving" finds only this spell plus three custom content spells. Do you know of a reason to think elementals are not generally considered "nonliving" in the game? (Note that the term is "nonliving"; the term "unliving" would probably only apply to undead.) --The Krit (talk) 03:14, November 21, 2012 (UTC) :* I don't know that the term "nonliving" has any specific definition within the game. Like you, I have run across no instance of it outside this article. But, most elementals are, for instance, subject to the variety of instant death spells, so they have at least that sort of life in them. :) And, that distinction, which at least separates them from the somewhat more intuitively "nonliving" races - constructs and undead - was why I wanted to clarify the drown article by enumerating the excluded races. It's probably best if readers don't infer that the game has some other supercategory of races tucked away somewhere... - MrZork (talk) 09:01, November 21, 2012 (UTC) ::* On the other hand, elementals do not breathe, which argues for them being nonliving (not conclusively though, as the requirements for "life" have long been under debate). Maybe this is a supercategory of races tucked away in this spell. Or maybe not. How would such an inference be worse? I don't see it leading to bad conclusions as long as this is the only place "nonliving" is used. Why not use a neutral phrasing (neither saying that the definition is unique to this spell nor that the definition is an official game term) and let the reader decide? Listing the races was a good move. --The Krit (talk) 18:35, November 21, 2012 (UTC) :::* The bad conclusions people might draw derive from the uses of terms like "alive", "living", and so on in the wiki, since it would be reasonable to conclude that "nonliving" creatures are not alive or living. Because of that, a reader might reasonably infer: That "nonliving" elementals are not normally affected by spells such as slay living (and possibly other death spells); that elementals may not be normally affected by negative energy damage ("...typically most effective versus living targets..."); even that JumpToLocation/JumpToObject may not work properly on elementals; and so on. Notably, such concerns are more relevant because of the commonality of elemental summons, not to mention druidic elemental shifting. Avoiding all of that trouble is why, IMO, "for purposes of this spell" was both accurate and worth noting. - MrZork (talk) 19:45, November 21, 2012 (UTC) ::::* Two quick thoughts for now: the negative energy damage article could/should be improved; I'll do that in a moment. The JumpTo* commands work on undead, so this does not really address that issue, only push it around. (At some point, most gamers have to come to grips with the contradiction that undead are "alive" when talking about creatures/combatants, but "dead" when talking about race. c.f. Enserric's conversation in the HotU campaign. :) Not really a stretch to extend this understanding to constructs and elementals.) --The Krit (talk) 20:04, November 21, 2012 (UTC) ::::* Elementals are classified as a living beings in DnD. Just so you know - I know you are taking way it works in NWN as intented, so I guess you will claim that Bioware decided to treat elementals as nonliving. Whatever, Im just saying. 09:19, November 22, 2012 (UTC) ::::* Back with more thoughts: I think this is reading too much into things. For one thing, the current note does not say that "nonliving" means construct, elemental, or undead, but that "golems and other nonliving creatures" means creatures of those races. Using a phrase from the spell description does imply (to some extent) that the note is explaining this spell in particular, rather than defining official terms. (And even if taken as an official definition, it still does not really contradict anything.) For another, the slay living spell does work just fine on undead creatures who happen to not be immune to death magic (such as a lesser demilich), so inferring limitations based on that spell's name is already misleading. I think some flavor text mentioning breathing might be in order though. I'll add that now. --The Krit (talk) 17:05, December 14, 2012 (UTC) * The current phrasing does imply that elementals are nonliving, which we have no reason to think has any useful meaning outside of this spell. The "For purposes of this spell" phrasing is perfectly accurate and it avoids potential confusion. Is there a good reason not to keep it? - MrZork (talk) 18:43, December 14, 2012 (UTC) :* It would be overly verbose with extra words that contribute little to nothing to the understanding of the statement, much like the extravagant locution of this sentence exemplifies a long-winded alternative to simply stating "too wordy"? :) Not including that phrase looks just as accurate to me. Admittedly, I probably would not have bothered editing the note just to remove that phrase, but there was also the point of strengthening "implies" to "means". Combining both of those changes looked like an improvement rather than merely changing the style, so I went for it. --The Krit (talk) 19:39, December 14, 2012 (UTC) ::* The note (which was shorter as I wrote it than it is now) currently implies that elementals are nonliving. That implication is either limited to this one spell or has broader and potentially significant implications that are undefined and unlinked to in the article. Which of the two is not clear. "For purposes of this spell" clarifies that no broader usage of the term "nonliving" is implied by its use here. If there is a shorter way to make that clear, then I'd be happy to see it used instead. But, there is no reason to leave the reader unclear as to the context of that term, even at the cost of five words. :) - MrZork (talk) 23:53, December 14, 2012 (UTC) :::* Well, maybe there are broader implications (not significant ones though). Maybe elementals in NWN are considered nonliving in general. We did conclude that elementals are included as "nonliving" creatures everywhere that term is used in the game... We are in a situation where "for the purposes of this spell" and "everywhere in Neverwinter Nights" amount to the exact same thing for all practical purposes. I'm just hesitant to state that either of these options is the "truth". (Hmm... I guess that would have been a better answer than "too wordy". Maybe I should have thought longer earlier.) --The Krit (talk) 01:51, January 4, 2013 (UTC) ::::* I deliberately chose not to say, "Only for purposes of this spell..." so that we were not leading the reader to assume that nonliving was a general category while also not precluding that possibility. The phrase, as I had it, already avoided declaring either bit of speculation as the "truth". Frankly, avoiding the former is more important than the latter because, while we know that this is the only place the term is used (and its limited implications), the average non-talk-page-reader does not know that and might reasonably wonder whether there are significant implications. Regardless, neither is implied by starting the note with "For purposes of this spell...". - MrZork (talk) 04:15, January 4, 2013 (UTC) :::::* I disagree on that. When you state that something is for a special purpose (e.g. this spell) there is an implication that there is something different in general. Starting the note with "For purposes of this spell..." implies that there is a different meaning for other purposes. (Including the word "only" would certainly be more leading, but the implication is still there without "only".) --The Krit (talk) 12:18, January 4, 2013 (UTC) ::::::* It is consistent with the implication that there may be a different meaning for other purposes, nothing more definite than that. Meanwhile, so what? There is no known harm done if a reader were to chose that broader interpretation. As noted earlier, there either is no category of "nonliving" creatures in the game or we know of no consequences of such a category outside of this spell. A reader thinking that this is the only place "nonliving" is meaningful is less problematic than the current wording which implies that elementals are part of some general creature classification, the full in-game consequences of which the reader has no clue about. As I said last time, we know that there are (in alll likelihood) no consequences to such a catergorization outside of this spell, but the reader does not. ::::::: Anyway, the goal of the note originally was to clarify the spell's targets using wording that didn't leave readers thinking that "nonliving" creatures were something they might need to understand outside this spell. If you have a better way to do that, I am happy to have it worded differently. - MrZork (talk) 18:55, January 4, 2013 (UTC) :::::::* It is consistent with the current phrasing that there may be a different meaning for "nonliving" when it occurs in a different phrase than "golems and other nonliving creatures". I think quoting the entire phrase instead of just the one word accomplishes your goal. Although I suppose quoting just the word and restoring "for the purposes of this spell" is not bad (other than implying that "nonliving" is a general creature classification, the full in-game consequences of which the reader has no clue about). --The Krit (talk) 22:14, January 4, 2013 (UTC) :::* You are wrong, see healing sting. 13:13, January 4, 2013 (UTC) ::* BTW, I agree that the other Nov 19 changes to the notes are improvements. - MrZork (talk) 00:19, December 15, 2012 (UTC) * I had another thought just as I was editing the article. Would :: The "nonliving creatures" that cannot be drowned are any of the construct, elemental, or undead racial types (i.e. the races with no need to breathe). : be an acceptable way to phrase the note? It does not explicitly state "for this spell", but it does imply that by re-using "cannot be drowned" from the spell's description. --The Krit (talk) 09:30, January 28, 2013 (UTC) :* I think that phrasing is excellent. :) In fact, I would even drop the parenthetical note and avoid potential questions about why the spell can drown sharks, sahuugin, oozes, and other creatures where a reader might wonder whether water created in their "lungs" would be harmful. - MrZork (talk) 00:17, January 29, 2013 (UTC) ::* Well, most of those are not races. ;) Although "oozes" is a good point. That might be an oversight (drown from SoU; oozes from HotU), but still good enough to make the parenthetical not worth it. --The Krit (talk) 02:30, January 29, 2013 (UTC)